Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for the complainant’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I shall refer to as Mr & Mrs X, complain the Council failed to consider their amenity or visit their home before granting planning permission for their neighbour’s single storey extension.
2. They say they will lose light and will be unable to clean their window because the gap between the extension and their conservatory will be too small.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr & Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr & Mrs X complain the Council did not consider their objection or amenity before granting planning permission for their neighbour’s single storey extension for their bungalow which adjoins Mr & Mrs X’s bungalow.
7. The Council confirms an Officer visited the application site. The Planning Officer’s report includes Mr & Mrs X’s objection. However, it notes a conservatory is not considered a main room for planning purposes. Therefore, the proposed extension has no impact on a main window.
8. The report also notes that the proposed extension will be within the boundary of the application site and a gap will be maintained. Access issues are a civil matter and is not a material planning consideration.
9. I understand Mr & Mrs X are concerned the Council did not visit their home to consider the impact they say the extension will have. However, there is no obligation to visit neighbour properties when considering planning applications. The Council visited the application site. The planning report shows it was fully aware of the location of Mr & Mrs X’s home and the proximity of the proposed extension.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered their neighbour planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman